themarauder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Just north of Toronto, thankfully.
Ross rifle what now?
Colt Canada's Next Generation Bullpup Prototype
- Thread starter TV-PressPass
- Start date
Problem is, the CF is a self licking ice cream cone for the incompetent and the stupid. Anyone who breaks conformity and expresses new/modernized ideas, tactics or techniques can look forward to being a corporal for life, while the yes men get fast tracked to higher positions; teach the younger generations to "forget what we learned in afghanistan" then the cycle of stupidity begins anew.
As much as I think the CF makes some (okay a LOT) errors - I cannot agree with that generalization.
What about the General Service Pistol, Kevin?
Problems as I see it across the board in government, it that consensus ends up to be group think.
I know a lot of folks in the CF, and DND, most of them are hard working, and a great deal of them are extremely bright. Part of the issues is they are compartmentalized - and this issue occurs down south as well - so a systemic approach to the fighting soldier and sub-unit is missed -- its talked about in doctrine, but never actually studied.
However I will say that on the Armor/Helmet issue - is that protection is taking a lead over fightability. At the end of the day the soldier has a dangerous task, some of the gear designed to enable and protect him ends up being to his detriment.
The other issue seems to be the inane Made in Canada aspect - if a more applicable item is made in an allied country - buy it, or license it (and don't do an Bombardier Iltis switch-a-roo with the item).
LVSW - everything wrong with Canadian procurement can be shown in that program - WTF was it -- it sucked on hi-way, and it was a total no-go off highway (and love the squealing brakes...)
I think Colt Canada is a great company -- my issue with them (as while we partner on somethings we compete on others) is that when Colt bought Diemaco, the new Colt Canada retained the Right of First Refusal on CF Small Arms -- IMHO the Canadian Government if they wanted to retain a vital strategic small arms industry should have bought it - and re-opened it as Canadian Arsenals (take II)
Secondly on trials -- a number of former CF folks here on the board, can tell you that when a trial was undertaken, quite often troop feedback was ignored - or downright refused. Partial example where some of the C7A2 upgrades - folks may remember myself and a few others describing that issue.
1) Feedback was rebutted using R22eR feedback - saying the snagging handle, Ambo Mag Release (with less purchase than the original Norgon) and others where well accepted during trials with the Vandoo's --
a) apparently the idea of wearing dummy mitts with a cord thru it to shake off upon the needs to use weapons and then use the anti-contact gloves was not thought of.
b) talking to folks in 3R22eR - they used the Support Company (mechanics, truckers, cooks etc) to do the testing.
TRIAD - pitchfork of doom has cost the CF a lot more than if they had bought M4/M5 RAS from KAC even at a commercial price -- I had posted years ago the memo that was sent out to rebutt CF members who where using RAS on CF weapons for trials, but could not use them at parent units (safety...) and the claim was that the RAS was going to cost $800 a pop -- when the commercial retail price was under $400...
Boots -- boot trial was utterly flawed - as 1 company had troops issued 1 of the various new boots -- how can they compare the other new options?
ELCAN sight - and here I can really get going -- the concept was simply to increase troops range scores, no thought into the close battle, but the belief from year of the Cold War was that we would be picking off Russians at 400-500m, and thus that was the focus.
IIRC most units got issued C7A1's in the 1994 timeframe - there have been a number of weapons "upgrades" since then - but no new optics trial
- also the lack of a real rail still plagues the CF - want to mount a II or Thermal sight to a C7/C8 -- not happening.
Frankly I think the easiest CoA for the CF on weapons is to issue the C8IUR - and then hold an optic and accessory trial.
The fact that all troops don't have NOD's and PEQ's is basically criminal.
IchBinEinSniper
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Brockvegas
You remove the military specific words and replace them with office jargon and you have what it is like to work at many places...
I agree.
The idea of combining a grenade launcher into the primary rifle system is an outdated arcane view. Its unnecessary weight. You simply don't use the grenade launcher nearly as much as you will the primary rifle. And in situations where you do need a grenade launcher, you can switch over to a purpose built grenade launcher like the H&K M302. H&K realized this with the OICW. Which is why when OICW was scrapped, they developed the existing technology into the H&K XM25, which is an independent grenade launcher.
Placing the grenade launcher on the top is also quite simply ridiculous.
I think if they scrapped everything they have and stripped it down to just the rifle, then there might be something to work off of. Right now, this configuration is nonsensical. Too big. Not ergonomic. Illogical design features. Oh and of course we throw an Elcan C79 on it.
/\ I'm sure it would too.
But the thing is, even though something can be refined, it may still be starting at a place that isn't ideal.
For example, we can build a cow launcher prototype. I'm sure with enough time and money we can refine the design into the perfect cow launcher. But a cow launcher is still not a terribly useful or functional idea to begin with. Even though it is improved and refined and has terrific engineering.
Others have brought up a good point. Combining a grenade launcher and a rifle into the same weapons unit, is an outdated view. The whole concept of a "swiss army knife" of gun that does everything is outdated. People are often equipped for the mission tasked to them. So they only need to carry what they need. And most of the time you're shooting your rifle. You shouldn't be holding onto the grenade launcher 100% of the time for when you only use it 1% of the time. Its inefficient and ineffective. The grenade launcher on the top is also illogical.
But the thing is, even though something can be refined, it may still be starting at a place that isn't ideal.
For example, we can build a cow launcher prototype. I'm sure with enough time and money we can refine the design into the perfect cow launcher. But a cow launcher is still not a terribly useful or functional idea to begin with. Even though it is improved and refined and has terrific engineering.
Others have brought up a good point. Combining a grenade launcher and a rifle into the same weapons unit, is an outdated view. The whole concept of a "swiss army knife" of gun that does everything is outdated. People are often equipped for the mission tasked to them. So they only need to carry what they need. And most of the time you're shooting your rifle. You shouldn't be holding onto the grenade launcher 100% of the time for when you only use it 1% of the time. Its inefficient and ineffective. The grenade launcher on the top is also illogical.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
If the M79 is coming back into fashion I can only hope teaching soldiers to shoot in a half competent manner to a non pathetic standard might soon follow.
I hope but don't expect.
I hope but don't expect.
Our C7/C8 are great firearms. Just need a little updating and I'm sure they would be GTG for another 10-20 years. But it seem the good idea fairy got them dumping up to one billion into this project weapon system that might never see the light of day. And if it does...oh boy. Trainning the lot on whole new weapon, it will be funny to see what happens with this.
The telescoping ammo component and the LSAT are great ideas, because they are going after a real goal of providing the same level of firepower in less weight. That is something tangible for the grunts. That component of the program is worth the money IMHO.
I do have my doubt about putting 40mm on top of a rifle. There have been over 15 years of study on this topic, every weapon of this kind end up with smart fused 25mm or less, even the Chinese goes down to 20mm bolt action. If this is not a smart fused 40mm, we are merely playing with ergonomic here.
Part of the question here is doctrinal as well. Do you want a rifle man with a GL or a grenadier in the section? The XM25 implicitly admits the guy with the launcher should be a full time grenadier. Is there a doctrine as to how and when to employ the grenadiers within the section? If we want a rifleman with a GL, the rifleman is using the rifle as a main weapon. If we want a grenadier, the launcher should be treated as the primary. What we have right now with this weapon seems to be indicating that we don't want to make that decision because either we don't know the answer or the answer is going to be different in various scenarios.
Unfortunately, if we don't admit the dilemma here, we will be getting solutions that are overly general, but not the best in efficiencies.
I do have my doubt about putting 40mm on top of a rifle. There have been over 15 years of study on this topic, every weapon of this kind end up with smart fused 25mm or less, even the Chinese goes down to 20mm bolt action. If this is not a smart fused 40mm, we are merely playing with ergonomic here.
Part of the question here is doctrinal as well. Do you want a rifle man with a GL or a grenadier in the section? The XM25 implicitly admits the guy with the launcher should be a full time grenadier. Is there a doctrine as to how and when to employ the grenadiers within the section? If we want a rifleman with a GL, the rifleman is using the rifle as a main weapon. If we want a grenadier, the launcher should be treated as the primary. What we have right now with this weapon seems to be indicating that we don't want to make that decision because either we don't know the answer or the answer is going to be different in various scenarios.
Unfortunately, if we don't admit the dilemma here, we will be getting solutions that are overly general, but not the best in efficiencies.
GT - you hit the nail on the head.
For a requirement - they must be a doctrinal (or Operational - for emergency buys) need.
I for one would love to see the requirement that led to this.
I would rather see a requirement for an ammunition that has more range, barrier penetration and less flash - in the same weight as the current M855/C77/SS109 round.
(that does not have an exposed idiot tip that damages guns like M855A1).
I would suggest that a Grenadier is a grenadier first - but in many situations will be a rifleman primarily (if that makes sense) -- I would accept a smaller and less effective carbine for the grenadier to keep their load reasonable -- of course I am also the guy who thinks the C8CQB should be the general weapon, and the Section have two SDM's with a C8SFW with FF barrel and 1-6x optic, and a PL DM/SS with a 16" 762 gun.
However like the Symetrical Infantry Battalions - the CF seems to want to make everyone the same - and not make any sort of logical plan to missions and equipment...
For a requirement - they must be a doctrinal (or Operational - for emergency buys) need.
I for one would love to see the requirement that led to this.
I would rather see a requirement for an ammunition that has more range, barrier penetration and less flash - in the same weight as the current M855/C77/SS109 round.
(that does not have an exposed idiot tip that damages guns like M855A1).
I would suggest that a Grenadier is a grenadier first - but in many situations will be a rifleman primarily (if that makes sense) -- I would accept a smaller and less effective carbine for the grenadier to keep their load reasonable -- of course I am also the guy who thinks the C8CQB should be the general weapon, and the Section have two SDM's with a C8SFW with FF barrel and 1-6x optic, and a PL DM/SS with a 16" 762 gun.
However like the Symetrical Infantry Battalions - the CF seems to want to make everyone the same - and not make any sort of logical plan to missions and equipment...
- Location
- North of 60
Thats the most hideous thing I have ever laid my eyes on.
Couldnt have said it better myself.
Well the terminator used it right? Terminator is a futuristic robot. So I guess that goes.
This is a rare CGN thread: Plenty of wisdom from a bunch of good people.
I will add this to the chorus: I had a discussion with someone from my trade who was asked for his choice of holster, for an upcoming holster replacement trade wide. The dude was nice enough, but he could not tell the difference between a Serpa and a 6304. Neither could he articulate why he chose the holster that he chose. If you are going to chose uninformed people for your procurement decisions, and not guide them somehow, the results will be sub optimal.
Long ago I decided that I could not change the Forces at large. What I can do is have a positive impact, locally with my subordinates/peers/immediate supervisors. Even as a part timer I feel strongly that as a professional soldier I need to seek solutions/support/gear/training outside the framework of my organization, in order to remain current and mentally sane.
So they want to dump a bunch of cash into this useless project? Oh well.
I will add this to the chorus: I had a discussion with someone from my trade who was asked for his choice of holster, for an upcoming holster replacement trade wide. The dude was nice enough, but he could not tell the difference between a Serpa and a 6304. Neither could he articulate why he chose the holster that he chose. If you are going to chose uninformed people for your procurement decisions, and not guide them somehow, the results will be sub optimal.
Long ago I decided that I could not change the Forces at large. What I can do is have a positive impact, locally with my subordinates/peers/immediate supervisors. Even as a part timer I feel strongly that as a professional soldier I need to seek solutions/support/gear/training outside the framework of my organization, in order to remain current and mentally sane.
So they want to dump a bunch of cash into this useless project? Oh well.
